SOCIAL LOAFINGSOCIAL LOAFING

PRESENTED BY:AKASH MEENA (10)DEEPIKA TAANK (12)BALENDU SINGH (16)

SOCIAL LOAFINGSOCIAL LOAFING

It describes the tendency of individuals to put forth less effort when they are part of a group. Because all members of the group are pooling their effort to achieve a common goal, each member of the group contributes less than they would if they were individually responsible.

It is the Tendency of certain members of a group to get by with less effort than what they would have put when working alone. Its two common manifestations are (1) Free-rider effect, where some members do not put in their share of work under the assumption that others' efforts will cover their shortfall, and thus cause (2) Sucker effect, where the other (fully performing) members lower their efforts in response to the free-riders' attitude.

Rope-pulling experimentsRope-pulling experiments

The first known research on the social loafing effect began in 1913 with Max Ringelmann's study. He found that when he asked a group of men to pull on a rope, that they did not pull as hard collectively, as they did when each was pulling alone. This research did not distinguish whether it was the individuals putting in less effort or poor coordination within the group.In 1974, Alan Ingham and colleagues replicated Ringelmann's experiment using two types of groups: 1) Groups with real participants in groups of various sizes (consistent with Ringelmann's setup) or 2) Pseudo-groups with only one real participant. In the pseudo-groups, the researchers' assistants pretended to pull on the rope. The results showed a decrease in the participant's performance, with groups of participants who all exerted effort suffering the largest declines.

Clapping and shouting Clapping and shouting experimentsexperiments

Bibb Latané replicated previous social loafing findings while demonstrating that the decreased performance of groups was attributable to reduced individual effort, distinct from coordination loss. They showed this by blindfolding male college students while making them wear headphones that masked all noise. They then asked them to shout both in actual groups and pseudogroups in which they shouted alone but believed they were shouting with others. When subjects believed one other person was shouting, they shouted 82% as intensely as they did alone, but with five others, their effort decreased to 74%.

CONT.CONT.Latané et al. concluded that increasing the

number of people in a group diminishes the relative social pressure on each person: "If the individual inputs are not identifiable the person may work less hard.

Causes of Social Causes of Social LoafingLoafing

Equitable contribution: Team members believe that others are not putting forth as much effort as themselves. Since they feel that the others in the group are slacking, they lessen their efforts too. This causes a downward cycle that ends at the point where only the minimum amount of work is performed.

Sub maximal goal setting: Team members may perceive that with a well-defined goal and with several people working towards it, they can work less for it. The task then becomes optimizing rather than maximizing.

Lessened contingency between input and outcome: Team members may feel they can hide in the crowd and avoid the consequences of not contributing. Or, a team member may feel lost in the crowd and unable to gain recognition for their contributions. Therefore, these group members lose motivation to offer their full ability since it will not be acknowledged. Additionally, large group sizes can cause individuals to feel lost in the crowd. With so many individuals contributing, some may feel that their efforts are not needed or will not be recognized.

Lack of evaluation: Loafing begins or is strengthened in the absence of an individual evaluation structure imposed by the environment. This occurs because working in the group environment results in less self-awareness. For example, a member of a sales team will loaf when sales of the group are measured rather than individual sales efforts.

Unequal distribution of compensation: In the workplace, compensation comes in monetary forms and promotions and in academics it is in the form of grades or positive feedback. If an individual believes compensation has not been allotted equally amongst group members, he will withdraw his individual efforts.

Non-cohesive group: A group functions effectively when members have bonded and created high-quality relationships. If the group is not cohesive, members are more prone to social loafing since they are not concerned about letting down their teammates

Confronting the social loaferConfronting the social loafer Private confrontation: The team leader or a selected

team member should confront the social loafer individually. This individual should solicit the reasons for the lackluster effort. Additionally, the loafer should be encouraged to participate and understand the importance of his contributions.

Group confrontation: The entire group can address the problem to the dissenting team member and specifically address the problem(s) they have observed. They should attempt to resolve the problem and refrain from deleterious attacks on the slacking individual.

Superior assistance: After trying to address the problem with the individual both privately and as a group, group members should seek the advice of a superior, whether it be a teacher, boss or other authority figure.

Exclusion: The loafer should only be booted out of the group as a last resort. However, this option may not be feasible in some instances.

Circumvention: If all the above steps have been attempted without result, then the group can reorganize tasks and responsibilities. This should be done in a manner that will result in a desirable outcome whether or not the loafer contributes.

Prevent social loafing

Develop rules of conduct: Setting rules at the beginning will help all team members achieve the team objectives and performance goals. Establishing ground rules can help to prevent social loafing and free-riding behaviors by providing assurances that free-riding attempts will be dealt with (Cox, 2007).

Create appropriate group sizes: Do not create or allow a team to undertake a two-man job. For example, municipal maintenance crews often have crew members standing around watching one or two individuals work. Does that job really require that many crew members?

Establish individual accountability: This is critical for initial assignments that set the stage for the rest of the task (Team Based). Tasks that require pre-work and input from all group members produce a set of dynamics that largely prevent social loafing from happening in the first place. If this expectation is set early, individuals will avoid the consequences of being held accountable for poor work.

Encourage group loyalty: Not all cultures experience social loafing. In China, social striving, the opposite of social loafing, occurs. In these cases, individual performance is enhanced by being in a group (Davies, 2006). The individuals care more about the success of the group than their own success. They have a clear view of the group’s objective and what leads to its fulfilment. This sense of group loyalty is created by individual awareness of the team’s position in reaching the goal.

•Write a team contract: Confusion and miscommunication can cause social loafing. Although it may seem formal, writing a team contract is a good first step in setting group rules and preventing social loafing. This contract should include several important pieces of information such as group expectations, individual responsibilities, forms of group communication, and methods of discipline.

• Choose complementary team members: When possible, carefully choose individuals to join a team. Make sure they have strengths and personalities that will complement other group members rather than deter from reaching the group goal.

• Minimize group size: Whenever possible, minimize the amount of people within a group. The less people available to diffuse responsibility to, the less likely social loafing will occur.

•Establish ground rules: Discuss what the team’s goals and objectives are and then develop a process to meet them.

•Create personal relationships: Provide opportunities for members to socialize and establish trusting relationships. Dedicated relationships cause people to fulfil their duties more efficiently.

• Highlight achievement: Invite members of management to attend team sessions. Allow team accomplishments to shine through to superiors. Close meetings by summarizing their group’s successes. Pat them on the back and remind them of their upcoming duties.

• Establish task importance: Allow team members the opportunity to demonstrate their willingness to do their work in a timely fashion.

• Evaluate progress: Meet individually with team members to assess their successes and areas of improvement. Discuss ways in which the team leader may provide additional support so the task may be completed. When possible, develop an evaluation based on an individual contribution. This can be accomplished through individual group members evaluations of others on team.

THANK YOU……THANK YOU……